From: Bob Cook
Jones and Bob-- I like this line of thought.
I think the current Mills theory and data indicate that a
shrunken hydrogen molecule can also form. However, I would think it would
be likely advance to a Cooper pair and a Boson as a result. This would
make fusion possible.
Shrunken H and D however would not form a Cooper pair. It
may take 2 H and 2 D to get together in a Boson configuration (integral
spin). The reaction may occur in small energy steps associated with the
energy of spin quanta, and do away with the large gammas associated with
strong force nuclear energy changes.
This seems possible, Bob – and it explains the lack of tritium. I agree that
the BEC is a fiction at elevated temperature, and that the Cooper pair
solves that problem, but to return to the subject heading, if it happened
this way, then it is outside of Ed’s hydroton model of an electron modulated
reaction (P-e-P) which requires a heavy “deflated” electron. In fact both
the electrons of f/H are locked and cannot participate in fusion.
However, if there is found to be an alternative way(s) to harness large
amounts of energy (way above chemical energy) then why add another “miracle”
into the mix so as to claim the name “fusion”? Cannot another kind of
nuclear reaction suffice? As I interpret what you are saying we have to have
all of these things happen to get fusion of protium.
1) Hydrogen shrinks below ground state to a redundant ground state
called fractional hydrogen (f/H).
2) Two f/H combine into a Cooper pair and the species is very compact
3) The pair migrate into a crack (NAE)
Thus far everything looks promising, but then…
4) An extremely rare kind of fusion occurs. Note than on the sun, only
one in every 10^20 proton collisions results in fusion, even with the
intense heat and pressure, since it requires a spontaneous beta decay at the
exact instance of the collision for the two to fuse and conserve spin.
5) The energy release of this fusion is lower than normal, since the
f/H has given up mass in order to shrink, thus no gamma is seen. But since
significant energy has already been released – why do we need this fusion
reaction at all?
I’m not saying that it cannot happen that way, and it does look better than
P-e-P, but it seems to me that we are invoking extra miracles, merely to
retain the name “fusion” when there are other ways to convert mass-to-energy
which do not involved fusion. At any rate, if this applies to the Elforsk
run of 6 months, then we should find that large amounts of hydrogen
converted to deuterium. If that happens, then the puzzle is solved and we
can move on.
OTOH, if no anomalous deuterium is seen after a long run, which is my
prediction, then your favorite suggestion – which you have sold me on – spin
coupling of the proton to the electron (as it reduces its orbital) fits the
bill perfectly without fusion. Yet, in contrast to Mills, the energy is
still nuclear. Since the energy gain is nuclear – coming from reduced mass
of the proton, or ultimately from spin coupling to a nickel isotope, there
is no gamma from the start.
It is all magnetic, in effect. Spin coupling is the key. No need to jump
ship for the sake of using the name “fusion”.
Why do many observers on this forum have a problem with the likelihood that
energy can be extracted from a nucleus without fusion? (when in fact, the
nucleus supplying the spin energy could be the nickel atoms or the protons
or both, and no permanent change is required for spin coupling.)
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
